Message-ID: <3DAF21AA.9030503@toppoint.de>
Date: Thu, 17 Oct 2002 22:46:34 +0200
From: Marten Feldtmann <marten@toppoint.de>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; de-AT;
	rv:1.0.0) Gecko/20020530
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Josh Berkus <josh@agliodbs.com>
Cc: Charles Hauser <chauser@duke.edu>,
	PSQL_list <pgsql-sql@postgresql.org>
Subject: Re: object oriented vs relational DB
References: <web-1790006@davinci.ethosmedia.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit


Josh Berkus schrieb:

>I've looked into OODBMS for my business.   However, I've kept from
>using any in production for one simple reason:  lack of a standard.
> There is no international standard for OODBMS, meaning that each
>OODBMS is its own animal and databases are not at all portable between
>different software packages.   Nor is your knowledge of one OODBMS even
>20% tranferrable to another.   
>  
>
Same here. I've done a project with Versant five years ago and we were badly
hit by the decision of the database vendor to give up a special language 
binding - just as
we had finished the project. For that reason I would never ever do a 
project again
with oodbms - no standard, no way of switching the database product.

The problem is, that the ODMG group is so much influenced now by the 
Java hype, that
nobody seems to expect, that the ODMG 3.0 standard seems to be a real thing.

Another view about comp.databases.objects shows us, that the Java world 
produces
one new oodbms each week and they do not care about any standards. Their
standard is Java and the rest of the world is meaningless.

>In comparison to relational databases, this is like turning the clock
>back to 1980, when every database implementation was idiosyncratic and
>
>I
>
Well, well spoken and still unbelievable ! :-)